


Heroism and the Heroic in the Homeric Epics and the Ramayana

by Litsetaure



Category: Ramayana - Valmiki, The Iliad - Homer, The Odyssey - Homer
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2013-07-11
Updated: 2013-07-11
Packaged: 2017-12-19 04:15:56
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings, No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 10
Words: 10,147
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/879353
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Litsetaure/pseuds/Litsetaure
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>My undergraduate dissertation, written in 2008.</p>
            </blockquote>





	1. Introduction

** Introduction **

Heroism and what it means to be a hero has been subject to several changes, especially concerning changes over time and in terms of how different cultures view heroism. What is being explored in this thesis, largely through the analysis of the major heroic archetypes and characters, is how the ideas of heroism differ in the Homeric epics and in ancient Indian heroic society, with specific focus on the epic poem ‘The Ramayana’. As well as examining the major characteristics of heroic archetypes, specifically the hero who works with a partner or companion, the hero who works alone and the figure of the hero who plays a background role in the context of the epic, there will also be a brief focus on the importance of the ability for heroes to work as a team, even when they may not necessarily be used to doing so, as is shown, for example, by Odysseus when he works with Telemachus, and several others, to defeat the Suitors.      

 

Other concepts explored here will be the idea of what constitutes a heroic society in both of these cultures, with an exploration of the ‘heroic code’, as well as how the idea of destiny and the relationship with gods can affect the hero and the eventual outcome of the epic, before a final exploration of the heroic adversary and why they are portrayed in a more negative light when compared with the characters viewed as heroes and whether, in the context of their society, this is a fair assessment of their characters.

 


	2. Heroic Society and the 'Heroic Code'

** Heroic Society and the ‘Heroic Code’ **

****

            Both contexts in which these epics were written have their own take on what constitutes a heroic society. Often, such societies are built from a set of rules known by scholars as the ‘heroic code’. This code can, and does, change both over time and according to the culture in which the epic is set or written. It is therefore true to say that a hero is not merely judged on his deeds, but also on how he does them.

            In Homeric culture, there is a very strong idea of what is known as a ‘shame culture’. Such an idea means that the heroes of the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ worry about what other people will think of them. This ties in with the ‘heroic’ code of Homeric culture, in which, if a man is a hero, then he must be the best at what he does. In this case, as he may die young, he has to prove himself worthy of being a hero in his short life and to “affirm [his] greatness by the brilliance…with which [he] kills” (Schein 1985: 68), as well as whom he kills. Because they are judged on results in battle rather than on who they are, it is very important for them to present a good image to their fellow soldiers so that they can gain ‘timē’ or ‘kleos’ in the way that Achilles does. To gain ‘timē’ is to gain the respect of other heroes and warriors, whereas a hero receives ‘aidōs’, or shame, if he does an unheroic or cowardly thing and it is this that motivates Homer’s heroes. In this context, it is not enough for a young man to be just that, since “while a hunter is simply a man…here, all men must be heroes” (Hainsworth and Hatto 1989: 223). To put it another way, the idea of a young man being equal to a hero is a clear indication of the heroic society which Homeric epic – which largely centres on war and warfare – fits into. On the other hand, the idea of young men relishing a pastime such as hunting was a notion which was much more centred in the later, less heroic background of Greek drama.

            There are, however, contradictions in terms in the context of what it means to be a Homeric hero. One such contradiction comes in the shape of the character of Odysseus. While the ‘Iliad’ is focused largely on exploits in battle, the story of the ‘Odyssey’ focuses on the trials of Odysseus, who is seen in a very different light to his Iliadic counterparts. Instead of trying to answer every situation he finds with a battle, he instead uses his cunning and intelligence. This idea that intelligence, rather than brute strength, such as that shown by Polyphemus, is the chief trait of Odysseus, puts him at odds with the other heroes who look for glory in battle.

            Achilles can also be seen as a contradiction to the traditional Homeric hero, even to the extent that he arguably wins his fame for the wrong reasons. According to the society, a hero is remembered because he shows prowess in battle by killing other great heroes. However, despite his killing of Hector, Achilles’ renown comes from his quarrel with Agamemnon and his following defection from the army, which is not the action one would associate with such a man, especially not in the social context.

            In terms of what constitutes heroism, however, society surrounding ancient Indian epic is very different. While there are similar important principles brought into play, their usage in the context was very different.

            Unlike Homeric society, which places its values in gaining respect and honour, heroes of Indian epic are much more focused on the idea of _dharma,_ which can be taken to mean truth, justice or, most commonly, duty. For example, it is the duty of a _kyshatriya,_ or warrior prince, to fight, but not for his own glory. War is portrayed as a ‘business’, not an opportunity for proving that one is the best at what he does. Indeed, for a _kyshatriya,_ it was a duty “to die on the battlefield, or, if he lived to be old, to die in retirement” (Sidhanta 1996: 128), showing that the heroic death favoured by Homer’s youthful heroes is not necessarily the best death here.

            An ancient Indian hero was judged much more on his character than on his deeds on the battlefield. In this way, one can see that, aside from _dharma_ , a valuable trait in a hero is loyalty to others, no matter what the cost to themselves. This style of epic teaches us to uphold “the father as an object of reverence and the brother of love” (Sidhanta 1996: 124), which, in turn, explains the actions in the ‘Ramayana’, first of the hero, Rama, who accepts his exile unquestioningly once it had been decreed, and also of his devoted brother, Lakshmana, who accompanies him into the forest without hesitation and also, during his ‘aristeia’, when he “invokes the power of [dharma] to vanquish Indrajit” (Guttal 1994: 178), thereby showing his unwavering faith in Rama.

            When examining the heroic traits adopted here, one must also explore the attitudes taken by adversaries, such as Ravana and his son Indrajit, which are much more in keeping with Homeric attitudes towards heroism. A clear reason for this is to show the stark contrast between the _adharma_ , or ‘evil’, of these characters set against the _dharma_ of the heroes, in whom “the lust of glory and the passion for war are markedly absent” (Sidhanta 1996: 89), whereas such battle lust is clearly shown, especially in the hubris-filled figure of Indrajit. It also serves to show the reader “an age of polish and culture… [where] heroes are animated with the ideas and sentiments of [this] age” (Sidhanta 1996: 89), to the extent that the act of killing that is so acceptable in Homeric society, now appears likened to murder.

****

 


	3. Destiny and the Gods

** Destiny and the Gods **

****

In heroic culture, the gods and the idea of a hero’s destiny play a large part, especially in epic. Both concepts have several roles to play in the story of the hero, or heroes, and these roles are often interlinked, with a great deal of emphasis placed on the notion that the gods have a large significance when it comes to the hero’s life and some of the decisions that he ends up making in the course of the epic; decisions that will not only affect him, but also have an effect on those around him and even, occasionally, on the world or context that he finds himself in. There is also, however, the idea that the hero’s relationship with the gods plays a part in his destiny. If a hero has the favour of a god or goddess, then they can usually call on them for help or even as a part of a plan to help exact revenge if the hero has been wronged. Conversely, if the hero is perceived to have done harm to a favourite of the gods, or is already disliked by the gods for another reason, then the hero can be made to suffer for it, and his desire can be delayed, or may never in fact come to pass. Therefore, one can argue that the heroes often have little or no control over their destiny, because their relationship with the gods plays such a significant role in their lives.

            However, it would be inaccurate to say that the gods make all the decisions for the hero based on their relationship. The hero also makes choices himself; Achilles, for example, makes the choice to go and fight at Troy, despite being told by Thetis, his divine mother, that he will die if he goes into battle and she will “never again welcome him home to Peleus’ house” ( _Il._ 18, line 61). He knows, therefore, that for him “the price of glory…is a short life” (Griffin 1908: 99), but he accepts that his destiny is to die young is shown by his dismissive attitude towards his death being prophesied, firstly by his horse Xanthus and then by a dying Hector following their climatic duel.

            In the ‘Iliad’, there are several instances of heroes performing deeds that would today be seen as impossible or divinely orchestrated. For example, Hector who, like Achilles, is described as being ‘god-like’, smashes the Greek gate with an enormous rock which he handles alone as “Zeus…had made it light for him” ( _Il._ 12, lines 450-451), showing how, as a hero, he is deemed worthy of the gods.

            Similarly, heroes who are the offspring of a god or goddess, as Achilles is, also have the help of their divine parents on occasion. An example of this is shown when Aeneas, who is the son of Aphrodite, is rescued from a violent duel with Diomedes which could otherwise have killed him.

            In the ‘Odyssey’, where the chief hero is Odysseus, one sees a huge difference in his relationship with certain gods, especially Athene and Poseidon. At this point, one sees the idea that “while he lives, the hero is god-like and loved by the gods” (Griffin 1980: 99) being questioned. Athene often does everything possible to help him, such as during the storm when she “checked all the other winds… [And] summoned the strong North Wind with which she flattened the waves” ( _Od._ 5, lines 382-384), so that Odysseus could find his way to the land of the Phaeacians. On the other hand, following his ‘aristeia’, in which he blinds the Cyclops Polyphemus, Odysseus incurs the wrath of Poseidon. Because Polyphemus is Poseidon’s son, he calls upon the god to “grant that Odysseus…may never reach his home in Ithaca” ( _Od._ 9, lines 529-530), and so Poseidon pursues and hinders him.

            Like Achilles, Odysseus is also, to an extent, a pawn of destiny and the gods. His fate is not necessarily as absolute as Achilles’, who has to face his death as a price for winning his fame, whereas Odysseus will return home after ten years of wanderings. However, even though he will have a long reign in Ithaca “Death will come…far away from the sea,” ( _Od._ 11, lines 134-135), implying that he is fated to die away from his home in Ithaca. However, he has to offer Poseidon “the rich sacrifice of a ram, a bull and a breeding boar” ( _Od._ 11, line 131), so that he can make peace with him.

            The situation in the ‘Ramayana’ is somewhat different to the Homeric situation, because Rama is not a mere mortal, but he is an incarnation of the god Vishnu, who is “born as [King] Dasaratha of Ayodhya’s son and [who] will kill Ravana” ( _Ram._ 1.5), before returning to his heavenly abode following a long reign of his own.

            Unlike in Homeric epics, the idea of princes in Indian epics being taken as “the god himself in human form” (Sidhanta 1996: 194) is extremely common. Here, Rama ultimately becomes “Someone Else, someone he had always been. He was Mahavishnu, the God of Gods” ( _Ram._ 7.40), as he is literally deified.

            The major question here is whether, despite effectively being a divine figure himself, Rama has any more choice in his destiny than the Homeric heroes do. When he comes down to Earth as a _kshatriya_ , or warrior, he comes as a duty to slay Ravana rather than out of heroic desire. Even though he is fated to “tread a lofty path of fame and his deeds [to] become legends” ( _Ram._ 1.7), he will have to accept his destiny whether he desires fame or not and, ultimately, rule as a king should, regardless of the consequences. Therefore, in a similar manner to Achilles, Rama’s tragedy is that he is ruled, not only by duty, but also by fate. Because of his duty as a king, he will have to sacrifice people he loves, eventually losing his own will to live. 


	4. Heroic Archetypes: The Heroic Partners

** Heroic Archetypes: The Heroic Partners **

****

            Several epic heroes do not work alone, but have a partner to work alongside them. This hero is often someone who fights alongside the major hero or in his army, but his role is not as simple as this. While he may fight alongside the army led by his partner, as is the case with Patroclus being part of Achilles’ Myrmidons, he is also important, not only to his partner, but often to the ultimate outcome of the epic. Similarly, the relationship between Rama and his younger brother Lakshmana is important because it shows that, while a hero may have an army, there is one man who stays beside him.

            One of the most important aspects of the heroic partners is the concept of a mentoring role. This is important because it reminds us that heroism is not only glory and victory, but that good leadership is extremely important, because if a hero sends his men into battle without giving good counsel beforehand, then he will look bad if they end up getting killed. It also goes some way towards explaining why “any trace of continuous leadership, exercised by the heroes over [their] men…” (Van Wees, _Classical Quarterly_ 36, 1986: 285) is lacking, since, as is the case with the Myrmidons, Patroclus will be leading them into battle, but Achilles is the true leader. Therefore, one sees a heroic pair mentoring an army in their own ways.

When the pair advise each other, the difference is that there are only the two rather than masses, but similar in that there is an unspoken equality between the two, as they both listen to each other and trust each other. This means that the role of the mentor and that of the mentor is often interchangeable, with both men giving advice and taking it on board. Not only does this start to disprove the idea that an advice-giver should be older and therefore wiser, but it also shows how theoretical the need for a reputation and vast experience is. While this is important, trust in each other strengthens the relationship.

            A hero, almost inevitably, is defined by the characteristics that make him who he is and set him apart from the other heroes. For example, Achilles’ best-known traits are, among others, that he has a strong desire for _timē_ and his anger towards Agamemnon and later Hector. His wrath towards Agamemnon is brought about when he feels that he has been slighted by him since “[he] is trying to rescue Agamemnon’s army (Redfield 1975: 15) and because he is fighting “to get satisfaction…for Menelaus and Agamemnon” ( _Il._ 1, lines 159-160), rather than any personal reasons. However, this changes following the death of Patroclus when Achilles fights and kills Hector to avenge him and to gain his fame. It is these major traits, however, that ultimately bring about Achilles’ downfall. In his desire for respect and revenge, he becomes alienated from humanity to the extent that it is only by returning Hector’s body that he can find redemption.

            Patroclus, a man described as “Achilles’ brave attendant” ( _Il._ 16, line 166), has fewer dominant traits than Achilles does, but his role alongside him is equally important, if not more so. In Patroclus, one sees a classic example of divided loyalties, in his case to Achilles and to the rest of the Greeks. This is shown when he is caught between tending to the wounded Eurypylus and returning to Achilles with a message from Nestor. In fact, it is only when he sees the Trojans at the ships that he decides to “hurry back to Achilles and [try to] make him fight” ( _Il._ 15, lines 401-402). On the other hand, even when he leads the Myrmidons into battle, he calls on them to “win glory for the son of Peleus, the best man in the Greek camp” ( _Il._ 16, lines 271-272) which shows his loyalty and devotion to Achilles. At the same time, Patroclus does not hesitate to criticise him when he feels the need, calling him “quite pitiless” ( _Il._ 16, line 34), and showing his ability to be honest and direct with Achilles.

            In Indian culture, the ideas of what constitutes heroism are markedly different to Homeric culture and the heroes behave accordingly. Rama is an example of this, as is shown by the way that, like Achilles, he shows an “unflinching manner [in pursuing his] aspirations” (Guttal 1994: 93), even if they are different to Achilles’ aspirations. While Achilles believes in glory and honour, Rama is a believer in justices and duty, or _dharma_ , as is shown when he refuses to “abandon what he [sees] as being _dharma_ and obedience to his father” ( _Ram._ 2.10), even if it means going into exile. This also leads him to have a much calmer disposition than Achilles, only resorting to fighting when he has to. The irony is that it is this sense of _dharma_ which eventually causes him to lose those he cares most about, namely his wife Sita and his brother, Lakshmana.

            Rama’s younger brother, Lakshmana, who accompanies him on his journey, shares certain traits with him, namely a strengthening concept of _dharma_ , but “he is not a hero without individuality [and] fights for what he thinks is right” (Guttal 1994: 117). He is a hero who can disprove the idea that “heroes are…stock characters [who] do not develop (Hatto 1980: 56) as he gradually learns to curb his short temper, which is his greatest character flaw, and, in understanding his heroic duty, strengthens his renowned loyalty towards Rama. In doing so, he also shows how the advisor role can be interchangeable, as he gradually gains the ability to calm and comfort Rama following Sita’s capture. He also later reveals a sense of humility when he rejects the title of _yuvaraja_ , or crown prince, saying that “[Bharata] deserves the crown more…” ( _Ram._ 6.50), again showing his chief trait, which is his unwavering loyalty, especially as he tells Rama “when you sit upon the throne of Ayodhya, it is as if I sit there myself” _(Ram._ 6.50). Like Patroclus, however, it is this loyalty that eventually brings about his demise. By the end of the epic, “Rama the man [will] hardly exist, only Rama the king” ( _Ram._ 7.30). Unlike his childhood self, however, Lakshmana now understands what true _dharma_ is and accepts his fate calmly, even though he knows that he must die. In fact, he has to tell Rama that he must take his life as a part of his own duty. When Rama admits that he cannot bear to kill him, Lakshmana then leaves him behind and “[bathes] in the [river] Sarayu; he [chants] the mantras for dying” ( _Ram._ 7.39), again showing that he is loyal to Rama “of his own accord…and he finds his fulfilment only with him” (Guttal 1994: 117), which arguably explains why he dies when he leaves him.

                        The relationships shown by these pairs of heroes are shown to be similar in certain ways and yet different in others. In both cases, the major similarity is the devotion shown, and the chief difference is the nature of the relationships; friendship, shown by Achilles and Patroclus, or brotherhood, as shown by Rama and Lakshmana.

            The relationship between Achilles and Patroclus has been widely debated, with several critics viewing it in a pederastic light as opposed to the purest form of friendship found in the ‘Iliad’. Whatever the truth, however, there is no doubt about the strength of their loyalty to each other, even allowing for Patroclus’ concern for the Greeks. It is this loyalty that allows them to advise each other, which reflects in how Patroclus is one of the few who Achilles will listen to and who Achilles truly trusts. Similarly, after Patroclus is killed, Achilles shows how “when Patroclus dies, [he]…dies with him” (Redfield 1985: 107) as he returns to fight to oblige and avenge his dead friend, not to please the Greeks.

            In the case of Rama and Lakshmana, their brotherhood is viewed as a form of absolute love to the extent that they are almost unable to live and function alone. This is shown by Rama’s reaction when Lakshmana is almost killed by Ravana, since at which point “it seemed Ravana had won his war when [he] struck Lakshmana down” ( _Ram._ 6.37). Afterwards, Rama admits that “[he] would have killed [himself if Lakshmana] had died” ( _Ram._ 6.37). Their partnership, therefore, is crucial not only for each other, but also for the army, as “in the field of battle [Lakshmana] is second only to Rama” (Guttal: 1994: 117) and their teamwork, as well as individual strength, would be shattered if one of them was killed. In a way, Rama is like a strong father to the doting Lakshmana and sees it as his responsibility to love and protect him, but he is also willing to listen to advice, just as Lakshmana is willing to for him.

                        For any hero, his _aristeia_ , or his finest moment, is a crucial time as it proves how brilliant he is. However, in this case, the companion’s _aristeia_ is equally important, if not more so. It often sets up the main hero for his _aristeia_ in some way. Patroclus’ _aristeia_ arrives when, having led the Myrmidons into battle, he engages and kills Sarpedon, only to then be killed himself by Hector.

As previously stated, Achilles returns to the battlefield, not so that he can please Agamemnon, despite their reconciliation, but to avenge his companion. He says that he “will go and seek out Hector, destroyer of [Patroclus’] dear life” ( _Il._ 18, line 115), making Patroclus’ act appear as almost a self-sacrifice to bring Achilles back to the war.

            Lakshmana’s _aristeia_ , defeating Ravana’s son Indrajit, is crucial to the eventual outcome of his story, since “As long as Indrajit lived, victory was just a dream [but] now it is within…reach” ( _Ram._ 6.33), since Indrajit was seen as the greatest threat to a possible victory in the battle. Now that Lakshmana has defeated him, Rama can defeat the major adversary, Ravana, and eventually win the war.

            Like Patroclus, Lakshmana goes into battle with Indrajit as a means of helping someone else, in this case his brother Rama. His ultimate method of defeating Indrajit is to call on Rama’s sense of truth and to pray that his weapon should “have Indrajit’s life in [Rama’s] name” ( _Ram._ 6.33), reinforcing not only his dedication to Rama, but also his selflessness which was already established when he followed Rama into the forest, but is even more evident as he carries out his _aristeia_ for Rama’s sake, not for his own. For him, war is a duty to someone else, not a means for glory.

            With the companion’s _aristeia_ seen as the battle preceding the major climax, the hero’s _aristeia_ is the climactic moment itself before the final pathos. This moment is unlike the companion’s battle, because it need not necessarily be crucial to the ultimate ending of the epic. In the case of Rama’s duel with Ravana, it is extremely important, because it is born out of Rama’s duty to eliminate the threat of Ravana, as well as to rescue his captured wife, Sita. This battle is fought for the sake of _dharma_ on earth, which makes it extremely important for everyone concerned.

            Achilles, however, fights Hector for rather different reasons. His _aristeia_ , like his return to the battle, stems from a desire for glory as well as anger towards Hector for killing Patroclus. While these may be seen as acceptable values in the Homeric heroic age, one cannot deny that it shows Achilles in an extremely selfish light, especially when Patroclus’ ghost comes to him and tells him that “[Achilles] did not neglect [him] in life; [but he does] in death” ( _Il._ 23, lines 70-71) and asks him to bury his body. In fact, Achilles’ victory seems almost hollow, especially when compared with other victories, leaving a sense of relief when he returns Hector’s body and begins his redemption.

           

           

 

****


	5. Heroic Archetypes: The Solo Hero

**Heroic Archetypes: The Solo Hero**

In several aspects, the hero who works alone has equal importance, if not increased importance, to the progress and outcome of the epic when compared to the heroes who have companions or partners. One reason for this is that, with a hero who works alone, the author of the epic is able to focus on that figure in particular, rather than several different ones, thereby giving a more well-rounded depiction of his character. This is especially true in the case of Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ where one has the major character, Odysseus, as the focus of the story so that the events centre around him and, for the principal part, his wanderings before he returns to Ithaca. This is admittedly not as true in the case of his closest equivalent in the ‘Ramayana’, who would be the youngest brother Shatrughna, who is the twin brother of Lakshmana, because it is his eldest brother who is the primary focus of this epic. Despite this, he still has the time and ability to prove himself as a hero, and as one who ultimately works alone.

  
With heroes who work alone, arguably because of a need to prove themselves as multi-faceted heroes, there is an element of cultural contrast which is not seen as blatantly, if at all, with the heroes who have companions, or even with the heroes who will shortly be discussed, being those who are more active in the background story rather than in the foreground. As previously stated, this can be seen as an effect of these heroes needing to show that they can work alone just as well as other heroes can work when they have their companions, and that these solo workers have all the necessary attributes to do this. Because of this, one can often take the view that these heroes have a tendency to be somewhat at odds with their own cultures as well as with other heroes from their culture, especially in terms of what constitutes heroism as shown in their aristeia.

  
In the ‘Odyssey’, this element of contrast is shown throughout the poem, purely on the grounds of its subject matter. While the ‘Iliad’ is “a heroic poem in which all the main characters are of noble rank” (Emlyn-Jones, Hardwick and Purkins 1992: 21), the ‘Odyssey’ is a poem that is not about war, but about a man “who was driven far and wide after he had sacked the holy city of Troy” (Od. 1, lines 1-3). This is arguably another reason why Odysseus does not fit our immediate stereotype of a Homeric hero, since it would not be in keeping with the poem. In fact, one can argue that the only point where the ‘Odyssey’ resembles the ‘Iliad’ is the final duel between Odysseus and the Suitors and this appears out of place when compared to the rest of the poem.

  
A hero’s aristeia, especially in Homeric epic, shows the hero doing what he does best, usually by the means of an individual duel. However, Odysseus’ chief attribute is not his prowess in battle, but instead it is his wit and cunning and this is shown at his most famous moment, the outwitting of the Cyclops, Polyphemus. When asked his name, having used “sparkling wine [to have] fuddled his wits” (Od. 9, lines 361-363), he then blinds the giant with a heated olive pole which is embedded in his single eye, eventually allowing Odysseus and his men to make their escape tied under the Cyclops’ rams.

  
In this sequence of events, one sees Odysseus shows intelligence when he and the crew escape under his leadership. This is depicted when he fools the Cyclops “with [his] cunning notion of a false name” (Od. 9, line 415) so that the other Cyclopes believe him to be mad when he calls for help. However, in formulating his plan, Odysseus also shows wisdom not to kill Polyphemus. Had he done so “[it would have been] impossible…to push aside the huge rock [blocking] the great mouth of the cave” (Od. 9, lines 304-306), and then Odysseus would have sealed his own fate as well as that of Polyphemus.

  
Odysseus’ Indian counterpart, Shatrughna, is an unusual hero in that, as is common in Sanskrit literature, “the characterization is slight [and] one can see little shape [to him]” (Hatto 1980: 56), to the extent that he can, especially initially, be seen almost as a copy of his twin brother, Lakshmana. Interestingly, however, one can use this to make the argument that it is through the development of Lakshmana himself, as he gains more self-control, one can see the character of Shatrughna in that, while his brother learns to control his emotions, especially his temper, he does not, at least not to the same extent.

  
Because of this, Shatrughna, like Odysseus, is seen almost as a challenge to his traditional, Indian, heroic society, where one is not judged on their deeds in battle but on their idea of justice and duty. While his aristeia, defeating the demon Lavana, is done out of duty to his Rama, Shatrughna’s manner, especially when compared to Lakshmana’s calmness facing Indrajit, is incongruous to his background. He “quivered with anger [when facing Lavana] and light like flames spewed through the links of his armour” (Ram. 7.33) as he tells Lavana that he is “of the House of Ikshvaku…Dasaratha’s son and Rama’s brother” (Ram. 7.33), in a manner reminiscent of Homeric heroes.

This leads to the question of why Shatrughna acts in a manner which is seen more prominently in the adversaries such as Ravana and Indrajit. One reason may be that he works alone and, like Odysseus, he has to prove that he can work as well as a pair of heroes would together. However, there is also the idea that, because his aristeia is not the focal point, but is the final stage of the fight for peace, he can use these attributes to his advantage, especially since he works alone.


	6. Heroic Archetypes: The Background Hero

** Heroic Archetypes: The Background Hero **

****

            Epic is traditionally a genre featuring bloodshed and war in which we see young men, or even slightly older men, trying to prove that they are the best at what they do and that they are seen as heroes in their own cultures. Most of these characters are seen either in the front line of battle or as the protagonist or chief instigator or narrator of various events that involve them and a group of minor characters, such as a crew or an army. However, there is also another heroic archetype that is often overlooked, arguably because of his perceived lack of overall importance, either to the war that is the focal point of the epic, or to the plight of the main character.

            This character is the figure of the hero who works in the background to the action, either as an experienced tactician or a counsellor to the less experienced warriors, or as a relation to the protagonist, usually a king or a temporary ruler who is ruling the land while waiting for them to return, as is the case with Odysseus’ son Telemachus, who rules Ithaca while his father is away at Troy and then on his travels.

            Despite not being the primary focus of the epic they feature in, these men who function in the background are important as heroes in their own right, largely because of what their presence represents for the story itself. While the reader of the poem is focusing principally on the major actions taking place and the dominant figure, or figures involved in these actions, the figures in the background bring a sense of what could almost be called humanity or normalcy to the occurrences. One sees the figure of the wise old man Nestor, from the ‘Iliad’ where he counsels the younger men and tells stories about his own exploits. Odysseus’ son Telemachus is seen trying to rule the kingdom while his father is away and, in a similar situation, Rama’s brother Bharata, having being placed on the throne through unsavoury means, has to rule the kingdom meant for his exiled brother while he waits for his return.

            In the ‘Iliad’, one can view the figure of Nestor, the “clear-voiced orator from Pylos” ( _Il._ 1, line 248), not only as an aged and experienced war veteran, but also almost as an equivalent to the character of Odysseus in the ‘Odyssey’ in that their heroism and fighting may not steal the focus of the poems, but they each have crucial moments in the poems. One of these moments, from the ‘Iliad’, in fact shows them working together when Nestor proposes that “someone…pay these arrogant Trojans a visit on the chance of cutting off a straggler” ( _Il._ 10, lines 204-206) and Odysseus volunteers to do this. Here, one sees Nestor’s ability to formulate plans and strategies, in a manner which will later be emulated by Odysseus himself during the ‘Odyssey’ when he manages to outwit the Cyclops using wisdom and knowledge. It also shows a sense of similarity between the heroes who are in the background to the action and the heroes who work alone in that, according to Homeric culture, they can be seen as outsiders to the heroic norm. While Odysseus is best known for his cunning and intelligence, Nestor is best known, not as a warrior, despite his stories of past glories, but as a counsellor and advisor.

            One of Nestor’s most significant moments in the ‘Iliad’ also shows how the rest of the Greeks view and respect him; this is when he attempts a reconciliation between Agamemnon and Achilles following their quarrel. Initially, the attempt fails, although Agamemnon admits that what he says is true, albeit with bad grace as he refuses to tolerate what he perceives as arrogance and a desire to dominate on Achilles’ part. However, when the same plan is proposed later, following victories on the Trojan front, Agamemnon finally agrees to send an embassy to reconcile with Achilles and, ultimately, following the death of Patroclus, the two are reconciled and Achilles returns to the ranks.

            Nestor is also shown in a respected light when he gives the Greeks, as an army, tactics and “[uses] the experience he had gained in battles long ago to inspire his troops” ( _Il._ 4, lines 310-311) as he understands that he is too aged to fight. He is justifiably praised by Agamemnon, who even goes as far as to wish that Nestor’s “spirit were matched by the vigour of [his] limbs and [his] strength was unimpaired” ( _Il._ 4, lines 313-315), so that he could fight alongside them.

            Finally, Nestor is also shown as a motivator through his storytelling, especially when he speaks with Patroclus and tells him the story of how his people “and the Eleans came to blows…and [he] killed strong Itymoneus who lived in Elis” ( _Il._ 11, lines 671-673), which eventually culminates in him advising Patroclus to try and talk with Achilles and then, if he cannot bring his master back, to return to battle in Achilles’ armour.

            In contrast to the ‘Iliad’, the ‘Odyssey’ is “good at the evocative descriptions of scenes of peace and beauty” (Hatto 1980: 43), giving rise to a poem which is much more humane, almost to the point of being domestic, especially in the early books. At this point, the reader sees Odysseus’ son Telemachus, who is taking care of the kingdom, being properly introduced. Instantly, he is shown as being loyal to his family and especially to his father, always “imagining how his noble father might come back from out of the blue [and] drive the Suitors heading from the house” ( _Od._ 1, lines 115-116), also showing his hostility and dislike towards the Suitors who court his mother and take over his father’s kingdom.

            Despite running the kingdom, Telemachus is still shown as a character who is gradually growing or developing into a man, rather than someone who is actually an adult; his adolescence can be used in contrast to Odysseus’ developed adulthood and heroism, thereby portraying Odysseus as someone who Telemachus will want to eventually emulate, rather than merely aid. At the start of the epic, however, he is given the role model of Agamemnon’s son Orestes, and is told that he “must be as brave as Orestes” ( _Od._ 1, line 302), so that he can become famous. The parallel with Orestes also shows the change his character undergoes throughout the epic as he transforms from the young man who speaks sarcastically and sternly to the Suitors, but who also breaks down in tears during the assembly in the earlier books, to the strong future hero who plays his part in their demise at the end, thereby taking revenge for his father in his own way, as Orestes does when he kills his mother Clytemnestra, and her lover Aegisthus after they collaborated to murder his father, Agamemnon. By now, Telemachus has not only proved his loyalty to his family, but he has also begun to emulate Orestes by bringing justice on the Suitors and the untrustworthy servants and helping Odysseus to reclaim his kingdom.

            A hero in a similar situation to Telemachus is Rama’s brother Bharata, who “does not at all want to gain the throne through [the means that he did], the machinations of his wicked mother” (Sidhanta 1996: 124), but who, now that he is on the throne, is shown as “a worthy scion of Ikshvaku and the noble son of a noble father” ( _Ram._ 2.31) and ultimately a dedicated and competent ruler, even though he will eventually relinquish the throne when his brother does return.

            Bharata can also be viewed in a similar manner to his brother and closest friend Shatrughna, in that despite the relative lack of focus on him, one can still view him as an important hero in his own right, albeit in a different way. While Shatrughna can be viewed in a more Homeric light, almost to the point of being arrogant, Bharata is shown to have a greater level of humility, to the extent that he “ruled Ayodhya…in Nandigrama like an ascetic” ( _Ram._ 2.33), in a manner that, while it led to people wondering if his “extreme devotion had not a touch of madness to it” ( _Ram._ 2.33), shows his humble nature and determination to rule well until Rama’s return.

            Finally, Bharata has a strong sense of loyalty towards people he cares about, especially Rama himself. Upon hearing of his mother’s actions, he moves to kill her in a fit of anger, only to hold back as he realises that “Rama would never look at [him] again” ( _Ram._ 2.25) if he were to do it. This loyalty is also what drives him to stop Shatrughna from committing the same act, as well as eventually accepting his own role as king because Rama told him to and, ultimately, motivating his joy at his brother’s return and his willingly handing the rule of the kingdom over to him.

****

****


	7. The Heroic Adversary

** The Heroic Adversary **

            In almost every story centred on a war, there is often a clear distinction between the characters that are called the heroes and the characters that are called the villains. In ancient epic, however, it is not always so clear-cut, since characters that do not fight on the same side as the perceived heroes are not necessarily shown as the villains. Therefore, in such epics, every hero has an adversary to balance him out and emphasise that character’s traits as they are, by and large, portrayed in an opposing light to the hero whom they are compared with and often eventually face in a climactic duel.

            There are, however, exceptions to the rule that the adversary is displayed with opposing traits to the hero whom he is compared with. An example of this is the character of Sarpedon, a partner of Hector, who can be compared with Patroclus, Achilles’ companion. In an episode where he speaks to his comrade, Glaucus, he tells him that what motivates him to fight is a desire to “cultivate a great estate…with lovely orchards and splendid fields of wheat” ( _Il._ 12, lines 313-314), showing a similar love for his home that is displayed by his eventual killer, Patroclus, but also a  loyalty and sense of duty, which shows heroism as a means “to mark the warrior’s special status and role and to hold him to the execution of his task” (Redfield 1975: 100), rather than as a means of gaining glory as other heroes do.

            Hector, the leader of the Trojan army, is an unusual character to be viewed as an adversary, since he almost comes across as less of an anti-hero than Achilles, the figure who is usually associated as the hero of the poem since the poem is about “the anger of Achilles, son of Peleus” ( _Il._ 1, line 1), but ultimately, it is the character of Hector who appears to show himself as the greater hero, not just in battle, but in other aspects as well. It is clear that he has the ability to establish a sense of faith in his men and motivate them to fight as is shown during the battle at the ships where the Trojans fight “in the hope of gratifying Hector who was leading them on” ( _Il._ 15, line 745). He is also shown as a man who is not merely a warrior, but also a loving husband to Andromache and father to his young son Astyanax and he understands that “the day is coming when sacred Ilium will be destroyed, together with the people of Priam” ( _Il._ 6, lines 448-449), showing his conflicting loyalties to his family, and also his country and his duty as a warrior. Through the involvement of his family in the war, one can see how “Hector is both king [in battle] and warrior; he must be cautious and reckless at once, act well himself and direct the action of others” (Redfield 1975: 124). He is an extremely capable leader and a great warrior, like his rival Achilles, but he does not have the desire for _timē_ that Achilles has.

            It is therefore ironic and tragic that it is the Homeric desire for _timē_ that ultimately brings about Hector’s downfall as he goes after Patroclus, seemingly forgetting his family in his desire for recognition. When placed with his later rejection of the retreat advised by his comrade, Polydamas in the face of Achilles’ return, he appears to have become a victim of the fear of _aidōs,_ or shame if he retreats now, showing him as, by association, a victim of his society. This is ultimately why Hector can be viewed as an opposite to Achilles and also the reason why his downfall is the tragedy that it is; while Achilles is seen to have totally embraced his heroic desires, Hector did not.

             In Indian heroic society, the portrayal of the adversary is extremely interesting, especially when it is set beside Homeric society, since what would be seen as heroic in Homeric terms is not seen in the same light here; in fact, “when the hero [of the ‘Ramayana’] slays one of his opponents, it looks very much like murder” (Sidhanta 1996: 90), but in Homeric terms, the slaughter of an opponent is what makes a man a hero. However, for these ancient Indian adversaries, such as the demon Ravana and his son Indrajit, the idea of having a death in battle and slaying other heroes is associated with the same heroism that is shown in the Homeric epics, regardless of the loyalty of that particular character; when Patroclus and Sarpedon are killed in the ‘Iliad’, Homer shows them as great and brave men even until their final deaths.

 However, the idea of what it means to be a hero and what it means to be a villain in ancient Indian society is very different, with heroes valuing concepts such as duty and justice, whereas the perceived villains desire honour and respect, in a way that the Homeric heroes also do. Ravana reveals as much himself following the death of Indrajit as he admits that “to die in battle is the best kind of death…Those who die as heroic a death as [Indrajit] did find heaven for themselves” ( _Ram._ 6.34), showing that, for these characters, to die in battle will bring the honour and respect that they so desire.

This can be viewed in the character of Ravana’s son and heir, Indrajit, who eventually meets his death at the hands of Rama’s brother Lakshmana. Like Patroclus and, to a lesser extent, Sarpedon, he can be viewed as a pawn in the game of destiny and the gods, in that, in order for order to reign again and for good to ‘triumph’ over evil, he must be defeated, in the same way that, for Achilles to return to the Greek army and the Trojans to be defeated, Patroclus had to be killed to motivate him to return. For this reason, despite his flaws, it is possible to have a certain degree of sympathy for him, as it is clear that he has several virtues and assets crucial to a warrior and a prince. He has the necessary loyalty to his father and the kingdom to fight on their side and the courage to take on the princes. He is described as having a “wild and heroic life” ( _Ram._ 6.31), showing that, like Achilles and, to a lesser extent, Hector, he has a keenness for war and glory which is always there, even when “for the first time… [He] felt a cold pang of fear” ( _Ram._ 6.31), before he goes to face Lakshmana in what will be his final battle.

However true it is that he had positive traits about him, Indrajit is, ultimately, viewed as a villainous character since he does not share the same traits as a character who would be called a hero in his society’s would. Instead of showing the humility associated with heroism in this context, he is shown to have a strong case of _hubris_ , or excessive pride, to the extent that “he hated to think that anyone could withstand his arrows as Rama and Lakshmana did” ( _Ram._ 6.25). He can also be viewed as deceitful and almost cowardly in terms of his manner of fighting, since he is an expert in using _maya,_ or illusion, especially by fighting invisibly. This concept of apparent cowardice is also alluded to by Lakshmana, who taunts him that “each time [Indrajit] came to battle [he] came invisibly” ( _Ram._ 6.32) in a way that only cowards who were “afraid to face their enemy and afraid to die” ( _Ram._ 6.32) would. Like Sarpedon who, in his desire to “find out who it is that’s carrying all before him and has done so many Trojans so much harm already” ( _Il._ 16, lines 423-424), put his own desire for glory first and thereby left himself at the mercy of Patroclus, Indrajit met his downfall through his own arrogance.

However, it would not be the case to say that these adversaries are, in every way, shape or form, evil or entirely without redeeming qualities. Despite the idea that he is supposed to represent “the arch-evil…who constantly negates the forces of good” (Guttal 1994: 121), Ravana, who is apparently the greatest villain in the epic, is shown to be “the greatest of all the created beings of his time” ( _Ram._ 3.11) and, above all, a great king. The reasons for him to be considered as someone who is great are also revealed and he is portrayed as “a master of _astras_ [supernatural weapons] and a favourite of [the gods]” ( _Ram._ 3.11), with exceptional strength, to the extent that even gods and heavenly beings cannot defeat him. However, he is also said to be “matchless in…his generosity, in his intelligence and knowledge of the sacred lore and in his indomitable courage” ( _Ram._ 3.11), showing that he could have been a great and good monarch, except that he is also seen as “evil as well: a Beast of the night” ( _Ram._ 3.11), for largely the same reasons that his son is seen in such a manner; his arrogance in believing that he can take anyone, especially a woman, whom he desires, and his lust for battle.

The manner in which these adversaries are defeated is interesting, largely because of the contrast shown in the aftermath. When Indrajit is defeated by Lakshmana, there is a moment where he is shown as “the sun falling to earth…a star glowing in death” ( _Ram._ 6.32), before the focus switches to the reception of the hero, Lakshmana. In the brief focus on him, however, Indrajit is shown as someone who could have been a great hero had he not suffered from the _hubris_ which ultimately brought about his downfall.

By contrast, when Ravana is eventually defeated, this time by Rama, the aftermath’s focus is entirely on him rather than on the man who defeated him. In fact, Rama himself gives what could almost be called a short eulogy, praising his valour even at the very end, since he never once begged for mercy when he could have done so, ending with the words “Kings like him are never mourned, since the beginning” ( _Ram._ 6.40), and allowing Ravana’s younger brother, Vibheeshana, who had joined ranks with him, to offer the rites to the dead, even convincing him to do it when he later holds back from doing so, believing Ravana to have been “a liar and a killer” ( _Ram._ 6.42). This focus not only serves to remind the reader that, despite his flaws, Ravana was a noble king in his own right and also allows him to have some form of redemption in the way that Indrajit did not after his death.

           

             


	8. The Importance of Teamwork

** The Importance of Teamwork **

****

            In any society and for any heroic archetype, the ability to show teamwork is extremely important. Even for those heroes who are usually shown to be working alone, the ability to work as part of a team, even if the team only consists of him and a partner, is at least extremely helpful and, ultimately, can also become the difference between success and failure, or life or death. One example of such importance is shown in the ‘Iliad’ with the figure of the Greek hero Diomedes. Despite having a relatively small part in the grand scheme of the epic itself, especially when compared to figures such as Achilles and Patroclus, Diomedes still manages to establish himself as a heroic fighter, who has an _aristeia_ , in which he is shown to be “[storming] across the plain like a winter torrent in spate…so the dense ranks of the Trojans were thrown into confusion by Diomedes, unable for all their numbers to withstand him” ( _Il._ 5, lines 89-94), which marks him our as a hero who can work on his own. However, he is also shown working in tandem with Odysseus during the night attack on the Trojan camp, in which the spy Dolon is caught. Before they set off, Diomedes praises Odysseus, saying that together, they “could go through blazing fire and still get back” ( _Il._ 10, lines 246-247), thanks to the intelligence of Odysseus, reinforcing Diomedes’ faith in his companion as well as his ability to work alongside him.

            Teamwork can also involve protecting your own men when they are in danger, even if the warrior being protected, or even doing the protecting, is usually seen working alone. One example, also involving Odysseus, can be shown with the figure of Ajax, son of Telamon, who is seen helping Odysseus as “with his towerlike shield [Ajax] came up and covered him” ( _Il._ 11, line 486), protecting him from the Trojan masses and thereby showing that he is more than just a fighter, but also a loyal defendant who will protect the men regardless of the potential cost to himself. He is also shown as the loyal defendant in a much more active role when he is defending the Greek ships against an onslaught led by Hector as “[Ajax]…kept thrusting furiously with his sharp pike… [and] hit [the Trojans] with the enormous weapon” ( _Il._ 15, lines 743-746), showing not only his ability to work alone for the sake of the army, but also reinforcing his ability to protect the men.

            Ultimately, in the context of heroism and epic, the idea of teamwork is mainly focusing on the idea of two, or occasionally more, characters working together to overcome an adversary, or a group of adversaries. The two key examples of this occurring, taken from the different heroic cultures, other than the events mentioned from the ‘Iliad’, are when Odysseus and Telemachus engage in combat with the Suitors and when the brothers Rama and Lakshmana battle Ravana’s brother, Kumbhakarna.

            Upon finding out about Odysseus’ identity, Telemachus engages his father in a tactical discussion on how the situation with the Suitors should be handled. Odysseus enquires whether “[they] two could take them on…or whether [they] should seek help” ( _Od._ 16, lines 238-239); however, Telemachus contradicts him, saying that “Two men could not possibly take on so many determined fighters” ( _Od._ 16, line 244), showing his awareness of the gravity of the current situation. With this display of comradeship and teamwork, the pair are able to understand what needs to be done and how they can exploit the insolence and the arrogance of the Suitors, who are “blithely eating up [their] stores…stinting themselves of nothing” ( _Od._ 16, lines 314-315), thereby taking them out with a surprise attack from the start when Odysseus “levelled a deadly shaft straight at Antinous” ( _Od._ 22, line 8), who had never expected it.

            The teamwork between the two men also allows the reader to see how Telemachus is emulating his father, especially as he suggests to Odysseus that he should “find out which of the women-servants are guilty or innocent of disloyalty” ( _Od._ 16, lines 316-317), which Odysseus eventually does do, following the battle. One can also see how, in the light of his father’s absence, Telemachus has had to mature and grow into a man before his time and how he has embraced his role as a temporary ruler.

            In the case of Rama and Lakshmana, the use of teamwork is much more subtle, without the tactical discussion that precedes the climactic battle of the ‘Odyssey’. This is arguably because, unlike Odysseus and Telemachus, the brothers have an understanding that stems from almost never being separate from each other and this allows them to instantly know how they should act in certain situations, in a similar manner to how Odysseus and Telemachus would, had they not been separated.

            When the demon Kumbhakarna is defeated, it is initially Lakshmana, as opposed to Rama, who steps up first and attacks him “with a volley of arrows no army could have withstood” ( _Ram._ 6.21), even standing his ground against an adversary who had earlier “slaughtered hundreds of [ _vanaras_ , a magical race of monkeys]…his chariot waded through a lake of blood” ( _Ram._ 6.21). He is also aware of the fact that, by the time Rama comes to face him, Kumbhakarna is “blood-drunk…and not just on the gore of the _vanaras_ , but of his own _rakshasas_ [fellow demons]” ( _Ram._ 6.21), which he reveals when Rama does enter into combat with him, as well as his over-confidence in his own abilities and strength, which, as is the case with the Suitors, ultimately goes a long way towards becoming the chief architect of his downfall.

            Both of these examples of teamwork show how, when there is enough trust and especially love in a group, but especially a partnership, even during times of siege, the confidence they have for each other will triumph over the perceived arrogance or invincible strength shown by the adversaries.

            


	9. Conclusion

** Conclusion **

****

To be a hero can depend on several traits and ideas which are exhibited by the characters and highlighted by the society that they are living in and the rules that they are living by. These rules, as is certainly inevitable, are never exactly the same in different cultures, despite a few similarities between the two. In fact, it has become apparent that, in several cases, the idea of what it means to be a hero in one culture is almost the complete opposite to what it means to be a hero in another culture. While Homeric culture values the idea of being the best warrior and hero possible and proving this by defeating other great heroes, to be a hero in an ancient Indian culture would mean that, while the main characters should, as _kshatriyas,_ or royal warriors, be able in battle, they should be focusing on wisdom and justice rather than battle. In this case, war is not viewed as something to win a man glory and respect, but instead as a duty which will ultimately help to bring peace and victory to the heroes who have earned it.

 


	10. Bibliography

** Bibliography **

** Texts **

  * Homer, “The Iliad” – Penguin Classics, published 2003, originally translated by E. V. Rieu, revised and updated by Peter Jones and D. C. H. Rieu.



 

  * Homer, “The Odyssey” _–_ Penguin Classics, published 2003, originally translated by E. V. Rieu, revised and updated by D. C. H. Rieu, with an introduction by Peter Jones.



 

  * Menon, R., “The Ramayana: A Modern Retelling of the Great Indian Epic”, North Point Press, published 2003.



 

** Books and Articles **

 

  * Clarke, M. “Manhood and Heroism” in Fowler, R. (ed.) “The Cambridge Companion to Homer”, published Cambridge 2004.



 

  * Edwards, M. W. “Homer, Poet of the Iliad’, published Baltimore 1987.



****

  * Emlyn-Jones, C., Hardwick, L. and Purkins, J. “Homer: Readings and Images”, published Gerald Duckworth and Co. 1992



 

  * Griffin, J. “Homer on Life and Death”, published Oxford 1980.



 

  * Guttal, V. “The Iliad and the Ramayana: A Comparative Study”, published Ganga Kaveri Publishing House 1994.



 

  * Hatto, A.T. (ed.) “Traditions of Heroic and Epic Poetry, Volume One: The Traditions”, published by The Modern Humanities Research Association 1980.



 

  * Hatto, A.T. and Hainsworth, J.B. (ed.) “Traditions of Heroic and Epic Poetry, Volume Two: Characteristics and Techniques”, published by The Modern Humanities Research Association 1989.



 

  * Luce, J.V. “Homer and the Heroic Age”, published Thames and Hudson Ltd. 1975.



 

  * Mackenzie, D.A. “Indian Myth and Legend,” The Gresham Publishing Company 1913.



 

  * Page, D. “The Homeric Odyssey – The Mary Flexner Lectures delivered at Bryn Manor College, Pennsylvania”, published Oxford 1975.



 

  * Pucci, P. “Odysseus Polutropos: Intertextual Readings in the _Odyssey_ and the _Iliad_ ”, published Cornell University Press 1987.



 

  * Redfield, J.M. “Nature and Culture in the Iliad: The Tragedy of Hector”, published Chicago 1975.



 

  * Schein, S.L. “The Mortal Hero: An Introduction to Homer’s Iliad”, published Los Angeles 1985.



 

  * Segal, C. “Heroes and Gods in the Odyssey”, published Cornell University Press, 1994.



 

  * Sidhanta, N.K. “The Heroic Age of India: A Comparative Study”, published Routledge 1996.



 

  * Van Wees, H. “Leaders of Men? Military Organisation in the ‘Iliad’” in “Classical Quarterly 36”, published 1986.



 


End file.
